The common understanding whereby the prefix uni implies oneness, suggests that the use of the word universe should imply a single unreplicated entity. Speculations as to the possibility of multiple universes immediately evaporates any possibility of using the word to be the all-encompassing existential label. If there is more than one entity in a category then we usually contrive a term to describe the collection. A collection of bubbles is called a froth. A future group of sauropods cloned from DNA would be called a plod...in acknowledgment the gravity of the achievement. The set of all universes would need to be deemed a multiplicity. The probability of there being more than one universe in the cosmos would be about nil, even for very large values of zero.

Certain cosmological models suppose to predict the specific numbers of actual entities in the universe, from the origins of a uniform undifferentiated singularity of energetic essence. Whilst some convenient approximations are touted, there is a sufficient lack of agreement between what is actually here in the universe and what theory demands there should be, to give a clear indication as to the academic deficiencies of the cosmos. If a model has predictive value to an awareness, and is constructed of concepts about which high probability factual statements can be defended, then it acquires significance to those humans promoting it.

The geocentric model was adequate for predictions of diurnal periodicity, but it was forced to incorporate increasingly complex and inaccurate suppositions of epicyclic motion for planets. The heliocentric model of all the planets...including the earth...moving in ellipses about the sun, facilitated a greater accuracy in the creation of predictive tables as to the future relative positions of the planets. The evolutionary model provides a structure upon which a diverse range of concepts and ideas have been positively reinforced, whereas the spontaneous creation proposal has some difficulty in making the psychology of the creating deity remotely plausible. There is a sense in which the universe is indifferent to the models promoted by awareness speculations, even though humans are inclined to suppose that their intelligence is the process by which the universe is in fact inspecting itself. Whether certain humans suppose that the earth rotates about the sun, or that the sun rotates about the earth, or that comets are harbingers of portentous events, or that comets are remnants of solar system formation processes... it is of no consequence whatsoever to the universe...